Daily Discussion: Scott Steiner

Today’s topic: At the half way point of the month, it appears unlikely Scott Steiner will garner the required 70% of the necessary vote to be inducted into the GERWECK.NET hall of fame. The question is why? Steiner was a great amateur wrestler, a successful tag team wrestler with his brother Rick, and captured many individual titles including the WCW heavyweight title. It definitely appears he has the credentials for the hall of fame, no?

19 Responses

Steiner sabotaged his own career by allowing himself to become one of the biggest assholes in the business, both kayfabe and otherwise.

He had a tremendous career, but then started riding his name to garner power in the locker room. Big Poppa Pump would be warranted a vote into the HoF had he of had a career like Flair or Funk, but he didn’t… he had a good run and then rested on his laurels.

I am surprised he’s not going to get in. He was a fantastic performer from his debut through to about 1996. Big Poppa Pump was a great character, but with the extra weight he lost a lot of ring ability. He’s been on the decline since 2001. So maybe it’s case of destroying his legacy by carrying on well past his sell by date. Maybe it’s because a lot of people who come on to vote haven’t seen him wrestle at his peak. Maybe it’s the endless crazy rants.

He’s almost become this generations Dino Bravo. Who would put him in the Gerweck Hall of Fame? But then who saw him wrestle in the 1970’s?

@Kid Vicious. Exactly, to about 1996. If the vote was for the Steiner Brothers, yes all the way, probably the best tag team of the 90s (and since), but the high point in his singles career was being the big dog in a dying company, he didn’t exactly turn their fortunes around.

I think the majority of people who vote for the Gerweck HOF have maybe at best been watching wrestling for the past 5-10 years, that’s great we always welcome new fans and they have no real way to relive the history of the past few decades unless WWE makes a DVD. So it’s not their fault, but they have missed a couple HOFers.

Scott Steiner is simply one of the best. The Steiner Brothers are arguably top 3 tag teams of all time. Steiner had an ok singles career at a lackluster time in the business. I say without a doubt he belongs in the HOF. He is a very loud person but no way should that take away from his 30 year career.

His singles career was based on gimmick and name. You can’t compare Big Poppa Pump with early 90s Scott Steiner. I used to absolutely love him but the guy hasn’t been able to move well for 10 years and has worked on a largely immobile foot forever.

I don’t find anything other than him being a massive meathead being a detractor. I’ll still vote for him, because the fact that he brought the Big Poppa Pump character to main event status can’t be ignored. His technical ability even when he put on more weight was better than most. Prior to the TNA stuff, he was a star imho, and that should be enough

I voted no simply because, as a singles wrestler, he’s really done nothing. As a tag team wrestler, yes, the Steiner Brothers belong. But Rick Steiner would never get into the hall as a singles wrestler, and I don’t think Scott deserves to either. And I have been a wrestling fan since the mid-1970s. Once he became Big Poppa Pump and let steroids take over his body, his career declined to the point where he was more of a side show attraction instead of a great in-ring performer. Just my opinion.

I think our issue is that we put way too much focus on the title picture when we’re evaluating someone’s career. MVP said in one of his youtube blogs that belts really don’t mean anything considering it’s all a show; there are belts that you grow up wanting and thus they mean something to you as a performer, but it is not a valid measure of mapping a performer’s ability or legacy. Think about all of the one off champions that will be forgotten and go from there. What I am getting at is that Steiner may have allocated several of the bigger belts of his day, but that doesn’t mean anything considering most wrestling fans pass him over or have negative comments about what he did. Yes, he was a great amateur wrestler (which means nothing for pro wrestling but okay), he was apart of tag team that i’ll never forget (a team that should get into any HOF for that matter), and yes he won the WCW title many times; Steiner is not a memorable enough performer (for GOOD reasons anyway,….) to be put into any HOF discussion, and this is why a lot of under-card guys trying to get to the top and be remembered, like MVP, are saying that belts are starting to mask poor talent only due to the fact that they are given to those who do nothing special or impressive in either the acting sector or the in ring performing art.

Steiner is an great wrestler who I think should be in the hall of game. His one less successful run in WWE and series of bad matches with HHH ruined his reputation with a lot of people but you have to realize he was injured at the time. But I think he made up for it by working hard again in TNA.

Steiner Brothers Hall of Fame- Yes
Scott Steiner alone Hall of Fame- No
Steiner as a singles guy hasn’t performed to a great level. Just because Championships are given to guys who should hold them, doesn’t mean they are. Scott was good Pre- Big Poppa Pump. He doesn’t deserve a HOF induction, especially when a workhorse like Jerry Lynn doesn’t even get in

I am only 20 and sadly didn’t get to see Steiner in his peak. However I would vote yes for what I did see. Since his debut at the Royal Rumble I was hooked. He had the badass attitude, the huge look, the nickname, the phrase. Even rivaled with one of the greats HHH. I consider him my favorite wrestler and I believe the gimmick has left a stamp on wrestling whether WWE promotes it or not. You can’t deny what he has done even if it was never pushed by a major company.

This reminds me of Jeff Jarrett not getting in. It is nonsense. He’s an underrated guy who has had a long and successful career. His work in TNA was fun to watch, and his promos are always must-see, albeit for the wrong reasons.